From: Larson, Chris (CLarson@usaid.gov)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 12:05:28 GMT-3
It was the proctor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan V Hays [SMTP:jhays@jtan.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:17 AM
> To: 'Chris Home'; 'chris a'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Mutual redistribution (Interesting Challenge??)
>
> Regarding what you were told about not getting docked points, unless it
> was a Cisco proctor who told you that, I would be skeptical.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Home [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:26 PM
> To: Jonathan V Hays; 'chris a'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Mutual redistribution (Interesting Challenge??)
>
>
> Do whatever is best and works for you. One way is usually not the only
> way or necessarily the absolute correct way to do things in the Cisco
> lab world I am not looking for a gauruntee or for some written rule to
> it, but there is logic. I would like to find the logic behind why it
> would ever be necessary. I am convinced there is no need to filter when
> restributing one protocol to another on a single router to avoid routing
> a routing loop caused by the redistribution. I have to go by that as a
> my own rule until someone shows me otherwise or I have an experience
> that contradicts it. I can only know what I think I know through
> experience and learning until there is evidence to the contrary.
>
> It would be an interesting challenge to come up with a scenario that
> would require it.
>
>
> BTW - I have asked the question about extra configuration. I was told
> that you are not docked points for having extra configuration as long as
> the requirements are met. I would not gauruntee it. It is just what I
> was told.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan V Hays" <jhays@jtan.com>
> To: "'chris a'" <chris_atkins@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:44 PM
> Subject: RE: Mutual redistribution
>
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > I'm sensing that you are looking for a rigid rule: a guarantee along
> > the lines of "if there's only one redistribution point you don't need
> > to worry about route filtering." I don't think anyone can give you
> > such a guarantee.
> >
> > To restate what I said in a previous post in this thread, you are
> > better off examining each situation carefully rather than always
> > applying some rule (which may not be applicable in special
> > circumstances).
> >
> > Ideally you should think ahead of time where the problems will be with
>
> > mutual redistribution. But I use this crutch, since I am still
> > learning. Once I have routing working properly, what I like to do
> > *before* redistribution (as my lab study partner knows ;-) is to take
> > a snapshot (in notepad) of every routing table. Do this BEFORE doing
> > any redistribution. This way you can tell at a glance what routes
> > belong where before redistribution messes everything up.
> >
> > After redistribute in both directions look at the resulting routing
> > tables for routes that don't belong comparing them to the
> > pre-redistributed tables. Some problems may be obvious administrative
> > distance problems. Use trace to follow the less obvious paths.
> >
> > And I feel the solution of a complete set of filters every time you do
>
> > redistribution may not be appropriate. And in some circumstances it is
>
> > completely unnecessary. No one but Cisco knows the intimate details of
>
> > how they grade the lab - but it may be possible to lose points for
> > configuring something that's not required. Again - I'm not sure on
> > this
> > - just a rumor I've heard. When in doubt, ask the proctor.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of chris a
> > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 6:41 AM
> > To: Jonathan V Hays
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Mutual redistribution
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I have had many thoughts about this and with only 3 weeks to go until
> > my lab I am start to worry. I have found in Karl Solie's CCIE
> > practical studies on page 621 he states the following.
> >
> > R1----------------R2------------------R3-----------------R4
> >
> > | ----- RIP version 1 ------------------|---EIGRP2001------|
> >
> >
> > When performing mutual redistribution on R3 becuace there is only one
> > redistribution point there is no need to perform any route filtering
> > when using mutual redistribution.
> >
> > Any thoughts anyone please.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > In case I am doing a mutual redistribution at a single point between
>
> > > any two routing protocols , do I really ever need to filter the
> > > routes
> >
> > > that are being redistributed for prevention of a loop.....????????
> > >
> > > I have never done this and have had no problems till now..... But
> > > wouldnt want to discover something new during my lab.....
> > >
> > > But is there any case where filtering is required in for such a
> > > redistribution?....what is the normal thing to do??
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vijay.
> > > .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:51 GMT-3